A Five-Fold Reading of Psalm 2

This post is a bit less gutsy and controversial but I figured sense I laid out my current thoughts on the hermeneutics of ‘son of man’, I might as well do the same for the hermeneutics of ‘son of God’. Interestingly, the son of man figure appears to have a more exulted status in the Second Temple period than the son of God figure. Ironically, these phrases ‘flip-flopped’ in the later writings of the Apostolic and Church Fathers: Son of Man denoting Jesus’ humanity and Son of God denoting his divine status and filial relationship with God.

A Five-Fold Reading of Psalm 2:

• Historical-Critical: This is not a messianic psalm but is a royal psalm about a coronation of a king.
• Canonical-OT Theology: This text was to be read in conjunction with 2 Samuel 7 concerning the Davidic dynasty. The Prophets longed for its restoration. These promises gave root to earliest messianism in the post-exilic period as other nations ruled over the Jewish people, though God had promised a Davidic dynasty reigning justly.
• Intertestamental: The LXX is beginning to evince an expectation of an eschatological Messiah in their translation of Psalm 2. PsSol 17 combines Psalm 2 and Isaiah 11 to render a messianic reading. SibOr 3 evinces reliance upon Psalm 2, as well. Both of these are moving the son of God figure in a more eschatological direction (cf. Sam Janse, You Are My Son: The Reception of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the early Church [Walpole: Peeters, 2009]).
• Apostolic: Mark 1.1, 11; 9.7; 15.39 all apply Psalm 2 to Jesus in a regal, messianic sense. Cf. also Hebrews 1 & 5.
• Christian: Tert. Marc.3.20 sites from Ps 2.1–2 to argue for the divinity of Jesus. Cyril of Alexandria (PG 69:721) and Augustine (FC 92: 149) read this filial language this Ps 2.7 language through a christological lense in a Nicean/Trinitarian manner.

Thoughts? Questions? Outbursts? I do find it rather interesting to development of these terms from their original meaning to their later Christian / Creedal understanding.

A Five-Fold Reading of Daniel 7.13–14

I am doing some work for a class on Daniel 7.13–14 (esp. the ‘son of man’ phrase) been used throughout its reception history. Here is my first stab. I would love to hear your thoughts.

A FIve-Fold Reading of Daniel 7.13–14:

• Historical-Critical: This refers most likely to one like a human being. More ink has been spilled on this text than most other OT text due to its importance to both Old Testament and New Testament issues. This either refers to (1) an exalted human figure or (2) a heavenly being. (some might also taken this as a collective symbol, but this seems unlikely). The context demands an exulted figure in some sense. It seems reasonable to connect the Son of Man in Daniel 7.13–14 with Michael the archangel who was the angelic defender of Israel (cf. esp. Daniel 12.1–2; Collins, 305–6).
• Canonical-OT Theology: This text has no meaningful connexion to the other uses of Son of Man in Ezekiel and is not about the Messiah per se; it is, however, messianic in the broad sense of the term (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 219). Messianism evolved out of the cognitive dissonance between the Davidic regal promises and the nations dominating Israel. This is precisely the context of Daniel 7. At bottom, it must be considered a theologically messianic text in some sense: God will give to an exulted (heavenly? angelic?) figure dominion and share his throne with him (Mowinkel, He That Cometh, 348–9).
• Intertestamental: The LXX renders פלח as λατρεύω in Daniel 7.14, evincing a tendency to further exult this Son of Man figure. 1 Enoch 36, 46, and especially 48 harken back to Daniel 7.13–14 and interpret them messianically as referring to an exalted figure, though not one who is divine in any Trinitarian or even binitarian sense. 2 Esdras 7 & 13 also seem to speak of the Son of Man (alluding back to Dan 7.13–14) in both a pre-existent and messianic sense (cf. Myers, 307–15).
• Apostolic: The Gospels (and mainly the Synoptic Gospels) use the phrase Son of Man to refer to the exulted position of Jesus, though not in a Trinitarian and not even in a divine sense. Though the precise meaning of the term is unknown, it clearly refers to one endowed with divine authority (cf. Mark 2.1–12; 2.28; 13.26 et al).
• Christian: As early as Ignatius in the early 2nd century (IEph 20.1–2), many within the church began to speak of the terms Son of Man and Son of God to speak of the humanity and divinity of Jesus of Nazereth. Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus used Daniel’s Son of Man to refer to Jesus’ humanity (cf. Justin.Dial.100; cf. also Iren.Haer.12).

This is where I am sitting of these issues right now. Thoughts? Questions? Outbursts? Something I am missing? I realize this is greatly reducing complex issues but for the sake of a blog post I found it necessary to do so.

Performance Criticism and Mark 5.6

My brother-in-law, Bryce Carter, wrote me an email the other day asking me my thoughts on Mark 5.6. He was curious that a few translations said that the man with the Legion of demons ‘worshiped’ Jesus. He asked if I thought Mark believed that demons worshiped Jesus. Such a thought seemed assiduously curious to him. So I said I would give it some thought. After musing over the whole matter a bit, I asked if he would mind if I blogged my thoughts. He said ‘yes’. So here it is, Bryce. I hope this helps (NB–I have yet to read a scholar who expresses the exact same view on this verse, so I would love to get your feedback).

Mark 5.6 reads: ‘and, seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran and prostrated himself before/worshiped him (καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔδραμεν καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ)’. The word in question is proskuneõ (προσκυνέω). It literally refers to throwing oneself before someone else, but it can also have the meaning of worship (cf. [LXX] Deut 6.13; Matt 4.10; 28.9; Luke 4.8; 24.52; John 4.21; Acts 24.11 et al). So it is possible to translate proskuneõ (προσκυνέω) as worship, as some translations in fact do. However, when we read the Gospel of Mark from a literary point of view, this understanding of the word proskuneõ seems less than likely. In Mark’s Gospel, demons are not working in cahoots with Jesus. Rather, they are busy trying to foil Jesus’ Messianic secret (cf. Mark 1.21–28; 3.11–12) and they do not seem to enjoy being around Jesus (cf. 9.20). Demons don’t like Jesus in Mark’s gospel. So it seems unlikely that this Legion’s first reaction was to worship Jesus right off the bat.

All the reader knows of the demon-possessed man up until this point is that he was extremely aggressive and uncontrollably violent. Mark’s hearers were in no way prepared to hear that the man prostrated himself before Jesus. This was quite a shock given what the hearers knew about this man up until this point. They would have expected an attack—but they got prostration. This demoniac has been characterized as an attacker, not as a divine worshiper. Yet, in the end, he falls before Jesus in reverence not falling upon Jesus in aggression.

There is a word that is quite phonetically similar to proskuneõ that, if part of a performance (cf. Whitney Shiner’s Proclaiming the Gospel and Richard Horsley’s Hearing the Story), would create quite a aurally dramatic turn of events: prospiptõ, which means to fall before or, in a more Roman military context, to attack (cf. J.W. 7.194). When inflected, these words would be προσεκύνησεν and προσέπεσεν—which sound quite similar. Hence, Mark might be using on aural device to spring a dramatic, ironic twist on his hearers.

Since Roman military imagery may be detected in this passage (cf. λεγιών in 5.9 and Caesar’s Legio X Fretensis), perhaps Mark crafted the story to create a moving dramatic reversal in the ears of his hearers. This aggressive man who they were led to expect to act aggressively toward Jesus has instead prostrated himself before him. Mark’s hearers would have went from expecting a ‘fist-a-cuffs’ moment (prospiptõ) to experiencing a ‘no-contest’ moment (proskuneõ).

So what’s the point? Did Mark think of this demon as worshipping Jesus? No, not in the sense that many modern readers might think of worship. In my opinion, it is best for a translator to avoid the word worship here. Mark was not making a point about demonic worship, but about Jesus’ adamant authority and power—and perhaps doing it with a dramatic, ironic twist!

The Historical Jewish Trial of Jesus

Concluding my thoughts on the Jewish trial of Jesus, I will comment on the historical Jewish trial and summarize the last three posts. For discussion on John’s account, see the forthcoming post over at Next Theology (as well as his previous post interacting with me here and here).

The historical Jewish trial of Jesus

Though ample differences exist concerning the denials of Peter in the Synoptic Gospels, more ink has been spilled over the differences in Jesus’ trial than Peter’s denials. It certainly appears that the same core historical events lie behind Peter’s denials in Luke 22.55–62, Mark 14.66–72, and Matt 26.69–75. More importantly, Jesus’ trial also may seem to have the same core historical events behind their varying literary accounts of the Synoptic Gospels, as well.

Three primary historical solutions have been posed to solve the differences in the Gospels: (1) one of the Gospel writers (either Luke  or Mark/Matt ) erred in their narration, (2) there was only one long, late-night meeting that Matt/Mark placed in the evening and Luke placed in the morning , or (3) there were two trials: one in the evening and one in the morning.  Each of these three explanations seems plausible. However, something akin to a combination of the second and third views seems the most reasonable explanation: a long, two-stage trial with much of the spadework done during late night examination and the official trial and formal conviction done in the morning. This historical understanding seems preferable for two reasons. First, in the broader Greco-Roman culture dawn was often associated with the second rooster call (cf. Juvenal, Satire, 9.107–8: “quod tamen ad cantum galli facit ille secundi, proximus ante diem caupo sciet”; cf. also Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, 30–31; 390–1; Ammianus Marcellinus, Rex Gestae, 22.14.4),  which indicates that Mark presents an evening trial so late that it was virtually early morning.  Second, m.Sanh.4.1  indicates that a morning trial was necessary and an evening verdict would have no weight.  Thus, one late-night, two stage trial, beginning with late night acquittal and ending with an early morning conviction, makes the best sense of the biblical and extra-biblical extant sources. At bottom, though the literary accounts of the Jewish trial of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels differ in important ways from one another, this does not preclude the historical Jewish trial of Jesus. In fact, despite these differences, they all contain the same major contours. Thus, in light of the extant primary sources listed above, a long, two-part trial beginning very late in the night and finishing very early in the morning seems historically reasonable.

Summary of Luke 22.54–71 in light of Mark 14.53–72 and Matthew 26.59–75

All the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ trial and Peter’s denials evince irony and contrast: the courage of Jesus before the Jewish leaders and the cowardice of Peter in the courtyard, those who appear to be judging Jesus are in fact under his judgment, Jesus had prophesied about Peer’s denial and yet is mockingly told to prophecy. However, Luke’s account differs from the account give in Mark and Matthew. While Mark and Matthew have an interest in utilizing literarily complex interpolations to intertwine the concepts of Peter’s failure and Jesus’ faithfulness, Luke presents a straightforward, simple presentation of these scenes and evinces a desire to maintain clear staging.  Luke is especially concerned to paint a picture of a Jesus who is in control of a seemingly out-of-control situation.  He also exhibits caution to not paint Peter in too bad of a light.  Ultimately, due to the lack of temple charge, the lack of allusion to Dan 7.13, and the lack of blasphemy charge, Luke seems to paint the claims of Jesus and the offense of the Jewish leadership with a regal brush. At bottom, though many important and fascinating differences exist between these Synoptic parallels, it is imperative that we not harmonize them to the point of collapsing them into one another—or else we run the risk of collapsing the perspectives of Luke, Mark, and Matthew into one voice.

Observations on IEph.20.1–2

Ignatius wrote the following as he wrapped up his small scroll that he sent to the Ephesians:

Ἐάν με καταξιώσῃ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν, καὶ θέλημα ᾖ, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ βιβλιδίῳ ὃ μέλλω γράφειν ὑμῖν, προσδηλώσω ὑμῖν ἧς ἠρξάμην οἰκονομίας εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ πίστει καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀγάπῃ, ἐν πάθει αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναστάσει, μάλιστα ἐὰν ὁ κύριός μοι ἀποκαλύψῃ «τι» οἱ κατ᾿ ἄνδρα κοινῇ πάντες ἐν χάριτι ἐξ ὀνόματος συνέρχεσθε ἐν μιᾷ πίστει καὶ ἑνὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, τῷ κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ γένους Δαυίδ, τῷ υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου καὶ υἱῷ θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ὑμᾶς τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ, ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅ ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός. // If Jesus Christ considers me worthy in your prayers, and if it is his will, in my second small scroll which I am about to write to you, I will explain to you the divine subject which I began (to explain) with reference to the new man Jesus Christ, involving his faithfulness and his love, his suffering and resurrection—especially is the Lord reveals anything to me. Continue to gather together, each and every one of you, collectively and individually by name, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who was in the flesh a descendent of David, Son of Man and Son of God, so that you might obey the bishop and the presbyters in an undisturbed mind, breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote [we take in order to] not die but to live forever in Jesus Christ.

I have read this verse several time and it always surprises me for a couple reasons.

1. As Mike over at Ecce Homo pointed out in his recent article in JTS, Ignatius referred to the faithfulness of Christ using a subjective genitive construction. Of course, syntactically this could be taken as an objective, but the context seems to defy this reading, as ἐν πάθει αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναστάσει clearly demands a subjective sense. For Ignatius, in this text, the emphasis is on the work of the Messiah, not on our faith.
2. Ignatius collocates two highly debated christological terms in the phrase, ‘Son of Man and Son of God’. What’s more, the basic reading of this phrase in this text seems to go against the grain of much scholarship concerning the original contextual meaning of these terms. Tell me if I am missing something, but by collocating these terms, he seems to be trying to highlight the humanity together with divinity of Jesus, as we know that Ignatius thinks of Jesus as divine from his intro to this letter (IEph 1.0: ἐν θελήματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν). Might one describe this as proto-binitarian?
3. It always surprises me to see just how high Ignatius’ viewed the Eucharist—especially at such an early stage in Christianity. Here’s is an influential bishop speaking of ‘breaking one bread’ which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote by which we live forever in Jesus Christ. This evinces a nose-bleed high view of the Eucharist, a nose-bleed high view of the church, and a nose-bleed high view of the episcopate. As a bishop himself, some might see his view of the episcopate as tendentious, but then again he was going to die, so I am not sure how he really stood to benefit from the Ephesians a high view of the episcopate.

All these observations reflect what seems to me fascinating fasts when considering the question of Christian origins and its developmental trajectory. All of these observations become more and more interesting if the connection between Ignatius and John is in any way veracious. Thoughts?

How the Jewish trial of Jesus is [re]told?

What was the different Gospel writer’s rationale for the major differences recorded concerning Jesus’ Jewish trial and Peter’s denials in the Synoptic Gospels?

From the perspective of this author, seven major differences exist between the Synoptic Gospels account of Jesus’ trial and Peter’s denials: (1) the order of events (including the trial, Peter’s denials, and the soldiers mocking), (2) the identity of Peter’s questioners, (3) the number of roosters calls in Mark, (4) the absence of the temple charge in Luke, (5) Jesus’ initial answer to the Jewish leadership’ question, (6) Jesus’ lack of allusion to Dan 7.13 in Luke and (7) the lack of the charge of blasphemy deserving in Luke. What is the rationale for these differences in each Gospel?

First, the differing order of events in each Gospel make be demonstrated as follows:

Matthew                                                                      Matthew’s Scene Rotation
Evening trial introduced (26.57)                                  A1 Inside with Jesus
Peter follows Jesus from a distance (26.58)              B1 Outside with Peter
Evening trial continued (26.59–66)                                     A2 Inside with Jesus
Jews mocking and beating Jesus (26.67–68)
Peter’s denial (26.69–75)                                                       B2 Outside with Peter
Taking Jesus to Pilate in the morning (27.1)                                    A3 Inside with Jesus

Mark Mark’s Scene Rotation
Evening trial introduced (14.53)                                 A1 Inside with Jesus
Peter follows Jesus from a distance (14.54)             B1 Outside with Peter
Evening trial continues (14.55–64)                                      A2 Inside with Jesus
Jews mocking and beating Jesus (14.65)
Peter’s denial (14.66–72)                                                        B2 Outside with Peter
Taking Jesus to Pilate in the morning (15.1)                                     A3 Inside with Jesus

Luke Luke’s Scene Rotation
Evening trial introduced (22.54a)                               A1 Inside with Jesus
Peter follows Jesus from a distance (22.54b)           B1 Outside with Peter
Peter’s denials (22.55–62)
Soldiers mock and beat Jesus (22.63–65)                           A2 Inside with Jesus
Morning trial to condemn Jesus (22.66-71)

Luke presents a more simple, straightforward account of the core historical events, condensing the long, two-part trial into a simple morning trial and the simplifying the more complex interpolation of Peter and Jesus’ activity.  He brings Jesus and Peter into their respective geographical locations, then Peter’s denials, then Jesus before the Sanhedrin, before Pilate, and before Herod. Mark, as he was accustomed to doing, concatenated and interpolated the two stories together to better contrast the courage of Jesus with the cowardice of Peter.

The second and third major differences may be explained together. The failure of the disciples is played up in Mark and played down in Luke. Thus, the focus on the female slave girl questioning Jesus and the extra rooster calls serve to highlight the failure of Peter. Contrariwise, Luke evinces a preference to protect the disciples from superfluous folly.

Based on the high priest words in 14.63–64 and Luke’s Jesus lack of allusion to Dan 7.13, the fourth, sixth, and seventh reasons might be also be concatenated—Luke’s lack of the temple charge may be related to Luke’s lack of the blasphemy charge which may be related to Luke lack of allusion to Dan 7.13. In Mark 14.63, the high priest said τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας. This is important in Mark because Mark 14.55–59 is about finding μαρτυρία about Jesus’ claims to destroy and rebuild the temple. In Mark, the point of πολλοὶ … ἐψευδομαρτύρουν was to secure αἱ μαρτυρίαι concerning Jesus’ temple claims.  Luke lacks this material and seems more concerning with Jesus’ authority and regal claims, focusing on the terms χριστός/ὑιός τοῦ θεοῦ. In this particular part of Luke’s Gospel, the Jewish authorities never mention blasphemy—they hand him over to Pilate on charges of sedition against Caesar (cf. 23.1–3). Luke, like he does with the order, streamlined the story: no temple charge, no blasphemy, only regal questions (χριστός/ὑιός τοῦ θεοῦ) and regal answers (Ps 110.1 without Dan 7.13 ).

Finally, the sixth difference in the Synoptic Gospels narration of Jesus’ trial and Peter’s denials is Jesus initial answer to the Jewish leadership’s question. His answers range essentially from yes (Mark 14.62— ἐγώ εἰμι) to probably (Matt 26.64—σὺ εἶπας) to maybe but I’m not telling because it’s useless (Luke 22.67f— ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε· ἐὰν δὲ ἐρωτήσω, οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε). But since Luke focuses on the official morning trial and conviction while Mark and Matthew focus on the late evening interrogation this is not a problem.  The formal morning conviction part of the trial in Luke was just a formality, reenacting the evening interrogation part of the late evening a couple hours earlier, thus, Jesus’ answer was relatively inconsequential.

How many Jewish trials of Jesus: two, one, zero?

This series will begin to investigate the trial[s] of Jesus (or lack thereof) by means of a synoptic analysis of Luke 22.54–71, Mark 14.53–72, and Matthew 26.57–75. It will attempt to accomplish four goals: (1) note the differences, as well as similarities, between these accounts of Jesus’ trials and Peter’s denials, (2) ascertain the rationale for major differences, (3) determine whether these accounts refer to the same core historical event, and (4) summarize the fundamental message of Luke 22.54–71, especially in light of it’s Synoptic parallels. Let us begin with a synoptic comparison of these texts.

Differences & Similarities between Luke 22.54–71, Mark 14.53–72, and Matthew 26.57–75

The Setting: Luke 22.54 (Mk 14.53-54 / Mt 26.57-58):

Luke narrates the setting of this scene more succinctly than Mark or Matthew. Luke does not make explicit the presence of the scribes and the elders in this scene, while both Mark and Matthew do make this fact explicit (Mark 14.53/Matt 26.57). Luke states the location of Jesus—the house of the high priest, while Mark and Matthew both lack this information (Mark 14.53/Matt 26.57), simply stating that Jesus was brought to the high priest. Mark and Matthew [and John] indicate that Peter was outside with the assistants (μετὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν) in the courtyard. Luke omits the presence of the assistants in the courtyard with Peter. Mark and Luke both indicate the presence of fire, used presumably for warmth, in
the courtyard. Matthew, however, omits this detail altogether.

Peter’s Denies Jesus Thrice: Luke 22.55-62 (Mk 14.66-72 / Mt 26.69-75):

The Lukan sequence is different from that of Mark and Matthew in two ways: (1) Luke does not record an evening trial, while Mark and Matthew both narrate an evening trial, and (2) Luke mentions Peter’s denials before the mocking of Jesus and his trial. The order of Peter’s interrogators in Luke (female slave / an anonymous male / a second anonymous male) are also different from Mark (female slave / same female slave / those standing by) and Matthew (female slave / a second female slave / those standing by). Each Synoptic Gospel narrates the female slaves referring to Peter’s relationship with Jesus in a different way. Several synoptic issues of note occur during and after Peter’s third denial: (1) whereas Mark and Matthew’s Peter says οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Luke’s Peter says ἄνθρωπε, οὐκ οἶδα, evincing likely dependence on oral tradition in Luke, as Mark likely had close access to the key eyewitness of this event, (2) all three Gospels note the calling of a rooster at this point, (in contradistinction, Mark notes that this was the rooster’s second time to call), and (3) Luke adds that right after Peter’s third denial στραφεὶς ὁ κύριος ἐνέβλεψεν τῷ Πέτρῳ, highlighting Jesus’ dominant presence. Lukan redaction had a tendency to portray Jesus as in control during seemingly out-of-control situations. All three Gospels mention Peter’s remembrance of Jesus’ prediction of denial and his weeping bitterly. At this point, Peter was dismissed from the scene. Some many quibble over the various historical differences while others opine that no real differences exist. It should be noted that, based on the extant literature, it is feasible that the same core historical event clearly lies behind all three Gospels: (1) Peter’s threefold denial, (2) the rooster alerting Peter of his failure, and (3) Peter weeping bitterly in response.

The Soldiers Mock Jesus: Luke 22.63–65 (Mk 14.65 // Mt 26.67–68):

The order of the mockery of Jesus in Luke is different from Mark and Matthew. In Luke, it occurs after Peter’s denials and before the trial, instead of after the trial and before the denials of Peter, as in Mark and Matthew. Further, Luke’s mockers appear to be soldiers, not Sanhedrin assistants as in Mark and Matthew. All the Synoptic Gospels have of the mockers hitting a blindfolded Jesus and asking him to prophecy (προφήτευσον), though Jesus’ face was not covered in Matthew. Luke 22.65 is a summary verse about the mocking of Jesus. These are important differences, especially the identity of the mockers, though each Gospel presents a consistent historical kernel: people mock and beat Jesus anon before he was led to his execution.

Jesus Tried and Condemned: Luke 22.66–71 (Mk 14.55-61; 15.1 // Mt 26.59-66; 27.1):

The trial narrated in Mark and Matthew is longer than Luke. They both note that the whole council was present (Mk 14.55 // Mt 26.59), a detail that Luke omits. Luke does utilize certain parts of the latter part of the evening trial language, but he places the trial in the morning. In Mark and Matthew, the trial takes place before the high priest. In Luke, however, the trial takes place in meeting place of the Sanhedrin. Luke’s account lacks the temple charge, as presented in Mark and Matthew. All three Synoptic Gospels mention four things: (1) the Jewish leaderships question to Jesus about his Messianic claims, (2) Jesus’ answer, (3) Jesus authoritative claim to be the Son of Man whom God will vindicate and exult, and (4) the Jewish leadership’s reacting to Jesus’ seditious claim. All of these elements are important and merit further discussion.

First, the Jewish leadership’s question to Jesus is presented in a slightly different way in each Synoptic Gospel. Luke says εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἰπὸν ἡμῖν. Luke’s Jesus is asked an unambiguous question about his Messianic claims. Matthew add to this question the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (a regal, not Trinitarian, claim in the 1st century CE) and, similarly, Mark adds ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ. Mark’s use of the phrase ὁ εὐλογητός instead of ὁ θεός is likely motivated by a desire to avoid pronouncing the name of the deity. Though the exact details differ, the same basic question is asked in all three Synoptic Gospels: will Jesus make a regal claim?

Second, each Gospel provides different rendering of Jesus’ answer to the Jewish leadership. Luke’s Jesus tenders a mystifying initial answer: ἐὰν ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε·ἐὰν δὲ ἐρωτήσω, οὐ μὴ ποκριθῆτε (22.67b–68). Contrariwise, Mark’s Jesus answers “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι),26 while Matthew’s Jesus answers “you said” (σὺ εἶπας), which should likely be taken in an affirmative sense.27 At bottom, though major differences exist in the Synoptic Gospels concerning Jesus’ response, these differences are not irreconcilable: all do not deny the regal claim.

Third, the Lukan Jesus’ adjoining comment differs slightly from the Markan and Matthean Jesus, omitting the phrase ἐρχόμενον μετὰ/ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Jesus claims to be the authoritative Son of Man whom God will exult and vindicates. In all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus alludes to Ps 110.1 and in Mark and Matthew both Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13.30 Importantly, though Jesus’ initial answer to his Messianic claims in Luke and Matthew is enigmatic, his allusion to these texts from the Hebrew scripture makes clear his Messianic self-identity and mission. Luke’s account alone offers a follow-up inquisition of Jesus by the Jewish leadership in light of Jesus’ first response (22.70). The Jewish leadership wanted to confirm the seditious claim; Jesus obliged.

Fourth, in light of Jesus’ claims, the Jewish authorities make the decision to hand Jesus over to Pilate. All the Synoptic Gospels contain phrase “What further testimony do we need” (τί ἔτι ἔχομεν μαρτυρίας χρείαν). They felt that Jesus’ comments warranted sedition. Importantly, Luke lacks the explicit mention of blasphemy on the lips of the Jewish leadership in the trial as seen in Mark and Matthew. Again, though manifold differences exist, it is noteworthy how much the historical core of this event remains stable. In Mark and Matthew, the high priest rips his garments. No such detail in given in Luke. In Mark and Matthew, the whole Jewish council concludes with a judgment that Jesus deserves to die. This is only implicit in Luke’s Gospel. Mark and Matthew conclude their trial scene by telling of the Jews beating and mocking Jesus, followed then Peter’s denials. Luke has already related this information earlier in his narrative (though he pictures Jesus being beat and mocked by soldiers), thus he proceeds to the Jewish leadership handing Jesus over to Pilate.

Many might attempt at this point to compress these accounts into one harmonized concoction. This would be an egregious error, as it would neuter the voice of the individual Gospel writers and their perspective on Jesus and the early Christian movement. It would take the multivoiced song of the early Jesus movement and transmogrify it into monolithic monotone noise.

At bottom, many differences exist between these Gospels—many! Yet, based on the extant evidence, the same historical kernel is presented in each of the Gospels: Jesus was interrogated by Jewish authorities concerning a seditious claim within 6–9+ hours of his execution. Thus, it does not seem necessary to jettison the historical trial of Jesus before the Jewish leadership.

Lastly, these texts, though exhibiting some degree of literary dependence, evince a strong reliance upon oral tradition as the principles of fixity and flexibility are replete in their verbiage.

Stay tuned for the next post as we look to ascertain the reasons for these synoptic variations on the account of the trial of Jesus …

free GKC online

Did you know you can get a searchable version of the 17th ed. of Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar online for free? Yep, it’s available both in German and English. In case there is someone out there doing some work in Hebrew that does not know about this yet (as I didn’t until just recently!), I hope this helps you to lighten your load … both literally and figuratively.

HT: Boulders 2 Bits